Romano v. City of Hammond Police Department The
Filing
157
OPINION AND ORDER: Court DENIES AS MOOT 142 Motion to Amend and DEFERS ITS RULING ON 146 the Trustee's motion. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 11/3/2011. (tc)
United States District Court
Northern District of Indiana
Hammond Division
ROSE ROMANO,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF HAMMOND,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-342 JVB
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to add a
claim for reinstatement to her action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (42
U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) (DE 142). Plaintiff has requested an expedited ruling on the motion so
that she can petition the Bankruptcy Court, where her reopened bankruptcy case is pending, to
abandon the claim for reinstatement. Also before the Court is the motion of Trustee in
Bankruptcy Kenneth Manning to join this action in Plaintiff’s stead (DE 146).
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint is moot because the
original complaint is sufficient to put Defendant on notice that Plaintiff could seek reinstatement.
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was forced to take a disability pension against her will.
Among other demands for relief, Plaintiff asked for “any and all such further relief as is just and
proper under the circumstances.” (Compl. at 5.) Title 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (Section 107 of the
ADA) incorporates the powers, remedies, and procedures of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. One such
remedy is reinstatement. Thus, while the complaint does not contain an explicit request for
reinstatement, it indicates that reinstatement may constitute the further relief that is just and
proper under the circumstances. See Galli v. Morelli, 277 F.Supp. 2d 844, 861 (S.D. Ohio, 2003)
(allowing the plaintiff to pursue a claim for reinstatement where he alleged terminationin
violation of his constitutional rights and requested “such equitable and further relief as may be
just an appropriate”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s failure to explicitly request reinstatement is no
impediment to asking the Bankruptcy Court to determine whether a claim for reinstatement is
property of the bankruptcy estate and, if so, whether it should be abandoned.
Regarding whether the Trustee in Bankruptcy should be allowed to proceed as the sole
plaintiff in this action, the Court notes that at least one circuit court of appeals has ruled that a
debtor may pursue a claim for reinstatement in district court despite having failed to list her
employment discrimination suit as an asset on her bankruptcy schedules, finding that such a
claim is of no value to the bankruptcy estate. Barger v. Cartersville, 348 F.3d 1289, 1297
(2003). Moreover, at least two judges currently sitting on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
agree. See Matthews v. Potter, 316 Fed. Appx. 518, 524, 2009 WL 741875 (7th Cir. Feb. 25,
2009). Nonetheless, this Court defers to the expertise of the Bankruptcy Court to determine
ownership of the claim for reinstatement and will withhold its ruling on the Trustee’s motion to
proceed as the sole plaintiff in this case until after the Bankruptcy Court has ruled.
In summary, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s motion to amend (DE 142) and defers
its ruling on the Trustee’s motion (DE 146).
SO ORDERED on November 3, 2011.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?